Sometime I wonder if TMF wasn't allowed to write about Federer would he have anything to write.

I was trying to give some useful information about Laver and Rosewall. He gives a ranking list of some unknown person that is of course opinion. It's not fact like two plus two equals four. Or perhaps two plus two equal Federer. I don't know anymore.

Sometime I wonder if TMF wasn't allowed to write about Federer would he have anything to write.

I was trying to give some useful information about Laver and Rosewall. He gives a ranking list of some unknown person that is of course opinion. It's not fact like two plus two equals four. Or perhaps two plus two equal Federer. I don't know anymore.

Click to expand...

pc1, to be fair, a large amount of posters in former pro player talk post exactly like TMF (except not about Federer), yet you say nothing to them because their rankings are more in line with your views.

You're amazing. You pull up these lists and act like these rankings are set in stone. Is there any surface besides clay you don't rank Federer by far number one?

Click to expand...

No, it's just one example of a poll that's available. There are other polls that doesn't necessary be listed the same order. However, most people have the top three: Fed, Pete and Borg. What's the implication? It's saying that total titles in the pre-open era doesn't means it has more weight than a few titles(modern slams) in the open era. Borg only has a few grass titles but no one would say Rosewall is a greater grass player.

pc1, to be fair, a large amount of posters in former pro player talk post exactly like TMF (except not about Federer), yet you say nothing to them because their rankings are more in line with your views.

Really? I think Fed would beat Ilie with a ping pong paddle, regardless of what Ilie used. Anybody can make stuff up.

Do you realize this list has Richard Gasquet ahead of Emerson, Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzalez? And right below him is Djokovic, a guy who has won Wimbledon.What in the world could you see in a list that pits Richard Gasquet ahead of 4 guys (among others) that won Wimbledon? And even though Rosewall never won Wimby, to not include him on that list is a travesty.

Fed said that a ping pong paddle is no good. Instead he will use a wooden wilson paintjob of the prince god racquet.

Take them to school, Fed.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to tell what Nastase would want to do. lol.

Trivia-Did you know that Fred Perry, number one player in the 1930's was also the World Table Tennis aka Ping Pong champion?

In all seriousness, it would be interesting to see how Federer would have adjusted to a wood racquet. His whole tennis swing would have to change and his general style of play. He couldn't hit the heavy topspin angles he hits now and he probably would mishit far more with a small wood racquet unless he flattens out his swing. I think he would adjust but it would be fascinating to see how his style would have changed.

Trivia-Did you know that Fred Perry, number one player in the 1930's was also the World Table Tennis aka Ping Pong champion?

In all seriousness, it would be interesting to see how Federer would have adjusted to a wood racquet. His whole tennis swing would have to change and his general style of play. He couldn't hit the heavy topspin angles he hits now and he probably would mishit far more with a small wood racquet unless he flattens out his swing. I think he would adjust but it would be fascinating to see how his style would have changed.

Click to expand...

It was a weak table tennis era. I remember reading about that somewhere. He was the only player to win major tournaments in both tennis and table tennis.

I actually think Fed would have more issues with his backhand than forehand. I think he would be able to get by with a forehand stroke that wasn't too different from the one he has now with a bit more drive through the strike zone. It would obviously be a bit less lethal from the baseline.

From my own experience, the most difficult thing I find about hitting modern strokes with wood is getting heavy top spin with my one handed backhand. I can adjust pretty quickly off the forehand side (and still hit with decent spin), but I have to make a much bigger adjustment off the backhand side.

I just don't find that you have to start hitting drives with a continental grip when you hit with wood.

It was a weak table tennis era. I remember reading about that somewhere. He was the only player to win major tournaments in both tennis and table tennis.

I actually think he would have more issues with his backhand than forehand. I think he would be able to get by with a forehand stroke that wasn't too different from the one he has now with a bit more drive through the strike zone. It would obviously be a bit less lethal from the baseline.

From my own experience, the most difficult thing I find about hitting modern strokes with wood is getting heavy top spin with my one handed backhand. I can adjust pretty quickly off the forehand side (and still hit with decent spin), but I have to make a much bigger adjustment off the backhand side.

I just don't find that you have to start hitting drives with a continental grip when you hit with wood.

Click to expand...

You can't hit the heavily topspined sharp angled shots many of us can hit now with wood although you can hit some topspin. The racquets and string won't allow it with a few exceptions like a Laver and Borg. The racquets were also a lot heavier and it is tougher on the arm.

And yes I agree he would have problems with his backhand drive. It would be far more defensive than it is now. It's a major difference.

You can't hit the heavily topspined sharp angled shots many of us can hit now with wood although you can hit some topspin. The racquets and string won't allow it with a few exceptions like a Laver and Borg. The racquets were also a lot heavier and it is tougher on the arm.

Click to expand...

No, I can do all of those things. :lol:

At the very least, I won the only set I played against the guy who used to coach me when I used a wooden racquet and he did not.

Old grass, Laver sweeps them all, except maybe Tilden and, on peak play, Kramer , Budge and Hoad.He was even better than Borg and Sampras if one has to go by the records...

Federer style of play wouldn´t adapt to old grass, while many excelent grass courters like Kramer or Newcombe wouldn´t be as succesful as they were if they played in current grass.

BTW, Newcombe has faaaar more grass court titles than Edberg.tennis has some years, you know?

Click to expand...

Newcombe was some great grass court player. He beat Connors, Roche, Rosewall, Ashe, Kodes (that was for you Kiki), Smith and just about all the greats in his time on grass courts. As great as Edberg was I would favor Newcombe on a grass court. Better serve (one of the greatest ever), better forehand and a great volley but not as great as Edberg's volley. Edberg moved better and of course had the superior backhand.

That list is inanely bad. Pancho Gonzales, Bill Tilden, and Ken Rosewall not even top 10 all time? Bjorg, McEnroe, and Becker ahead of Laver?!?! No way would Edberg, Connors or Nadal be top 10 either, top 20 probably.

I think Federer would be excellent on old grass but everyone points out his defeat of Sampras on grass. Pete was losing to a lot of bad players at that stage. Federer also lost to an over the hill Michael Chang on grass too.

Neither of these matches mean anything. I think Federer would have done well with wood but his game would have to be revamped in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree that those matches don't mean everything. However, the point is that there is no use speculating that a certain player wouldn't be as good on a faster grass as they adapted their game to the current conditions. Nobody knows how a certain player would adjust to new conditions.

I agree that those matches don't mean everything. However, the point is that there is no use speculating that a certain player wouldn't be as good on a faster grass as they adapted their game to the current conditions. Nobody knows how a certain player would adjust to new conditions.

So this is only about me....cause Billie Jean King has 20 combined Wimbly titles alone and they played two other majors on grass, Margaret Courtwon a bit on the surface, Martina Navratilova was no scrub, either was Steffi.

I wasn't all that impressive since Murray or Djokovic aint exactly indoor fast grass surface type dynamos.. Hell, Nole isn't all that great on grass regardless. If Fed drew say Tsonga with the roof closed he probably would have had more issues there then he did with Pusher Murray because Tsonga knows how to attack. Serve BIG and put some pressure on the opponent. Murray just plugs and plugs away from the baseline until his opponent hits an error. Thats target practice for Roger indoors (as it kind of showed when they closed the roof) who can do what he wants vs. Murray under faster grass conditions.

Murray and Djokovic are SLOW COURT players.. They aren't faster condition type players like we have at wimbledon with the roof closed. Fed should be able to beat Djokovic and Murray under faster grass indoors playing at 50 percent.

Click to expand...

Moot point. The numbers say it all. Federer > Sampras, at almost every criteria in the record books.